I'm curious about the existence (or non-existence) of Longde in Bön-Dzogchen...

In a paper by Jean-Luc Achard, he mentions in a footnote that "according to Lopön Tenzin Namdak (oral communication), Klong sde teachings are not represented in the Bon po texts and should be regarded strictly as a rNying ma matter. However, previous masters such as Shar rdza bKra shis rgyal mtshan (1859-1934) have voiced a different opinion and classified under Klong sde teachings a set of works known as the bsGrags pa skor gsum." But Samten Karmay suggests that the bsGrags pa skor gsum is basically the same as Semde.

Tenzin Wangyal explains the three streams of Bön-Dzogchen in the following way: the stream called Ati corresponds to Semde, Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud corresponds to Upadesha, and the stream called Dzogchen corresponds to Longde.

So, we have Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen and Tenzin Wangyal saying that there are Longde teachings within Bön-Dzogchen, while Yongdzin Namdak and Karmay say the contrary...

I have here the Kusum Rangshar or the rDzogs pa chen po sku gsum rang sharal snang bzhi' i nyams len ngo mtshar snang ba' i ltas moThe display of Marvellous Visions - Practice of the Natural Emergence of the 3 Bodies in their Great Perfection.

Mutsog MarroKY

Bhusuku wrote:I'm curious about the existence (or non-existence) of Longde in Bön-Dzogchen...

In a paper by Jean-Luc Achard, he mentions in a footnote that "according to Lopön Tenzin Namdak (oral communication), Klong sde teachings are not represented in the Bon po texts and should be regarded strictly as a rNying ma matter. However, previous masters such as Shar rdza bKra shis rgyal mtshan (1859-1934) have voiced a different opinion and classified under Klong sde teachings a set of works known as the bsGrags pa skor gsum." But Samten Karmay suggests that the bsGrags pa skor gsum is basically the same as Semde.

Yes Longde is there in Shardza Tashi' s Kusum Rangshar.

Kusum Rangshar:by:Yongdzin Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche.

To begin to recognise Nature, we have to learn through the Teachings and receive the blessings of the lineage through Guru Yoga, that is our work. That is the Trekcho part.

Togal. We need to recognise that in reality the visions come from Nature, then we have to develop and use them. Developing is our work, but we can't make them -they exist from the very beginning.

Nature has these 2 capacities Trekcho and Togal as I've already said. If we practise Trekcho, Trekcho means Empty Nature side, without Togal or visions, so, if we go on practising, what to do with normal life?

We integrate with existence, sentient beings -then it can finally disappear in empty space. That can be the highest result if you practise Trekcho alone. The text has detailed instructions on how to practise and if the practice of Trekcho is done then one can achieve empty space and the physical body can disappear into empty space, maybe it dissolves in dust, something very small. We say, into atoms. That's what it looks like.

So, still some part of Nature's capacity can't be realised completely because in Nature there spontaneously exist lights which are not experienced if one practises only Trekcho. If Nature is completely realised and fully understood then it has both an empty side and appearances, that is full understanding of Nature, that is Togal. That is not newly made but it uses several methods of Togal practice and visions come like real Nature visions. As much as you practise, that much visions come.

This Nature, as I've already said, has Emptiness, Clarity and Unification, and Dzogchen Teaching has 3 parts:

Lopon lak does mostly personal use the method Mengagde as explanation, because he is convinced that in Nature emptiness and appearences / visions are inseparable connected. But they are divided only as means to get the whole Nature explained to the dualistic Mind.

Tenzin Wangyal explains the three streams of Bön-Dzogchen in the following way: the stream called Ati corresponds to Semde, Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud corresponds to Upadesha, and the stream called Dzogchen corresponds to Longde.

Well what TW makes more of it that is his case. I am looking only to what his / our Master, Lopon Tenzin Namdak does explain.

So, we have Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen and Tenzin Wangyal saying that there are Longde teachings within Bön-Dzogchen, while Yongdzin Namdak and Karmay say the contrary...

Well i doubt if our Lopon lak and Samten Karmay will have another opinion than Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen has. About TW, i have no opinion because i am not at all informed about his explanations. I keep for the safety, Lopon Lak' s explanations as the only valid ones. We saw that Lopon Lak did not deny the value and existence of Longde, Semsde and Mengagde within Bon Dzogchen.

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

There are no special texts devoted to Longde preserved in theBonpo tradition, although quite a number of them were translatedby Vairochana (eighth century C.E.) and have been preservedin the Nyingmapa tradition.

Id., p. 193 :However, we Bonpos do nothave the texts for this Longde method; it is strictly a Nyingmapamatter.

There are no special texts devoted to Longde preserved in theBonpo tradition, although quite a number of them were translatedby Vairochana (eighth century C.E.) and have been preservedin the Nyingmapa tradition.

Id., p. 193 :However, we Bonpos do nothave the texts for this Longde method; it is strictly a Nyingmapamatter.

I guess it's clear.

Tashi delek,

Yes it is clear to me , but also clear to me, would be Lopon Lak's comment on Shardza Tashi's Kusum Rangshar. In case Kusum Rangshar would not belong to Bon than yes it is like that Longde is part of Nyingma.

Shardza Tashi wrote a huge amount texts, within a very short time. He did connect all Lineages within Bon. He was also Rime and very known in his days.

I phoned JL today about this question and synthesized his answers below.

kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek,

I have here the Kusum Rangshar or the rDzogs pa chen po sku gsum rang sharal snang bzhi' i nyams len ngo mtshar snang ba' i ltas moThe display of Marvellous Visions - Practice of the Natural Emergence of the 3 Bodies in their Great Perfection.

Mutsog MarroKY

It's of no use because it's partly based on New Bon works, as well as Bon from India which accepts the classification into three series. This means the Bonpos accept the three series as a valid classificatory scheme but they don't have Longde texts.

Bhusuku wrote:I'm curious about the existence (or non-existence) of Longde in Bön-Dzogchen...

See the quotes in my previous message from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings, p. 192 and 193.

But Samten Karmay suggests that the bsGrags pa skor gsum is basically the same as Semde.

Samten Karmay is right because what some Bonpos have classified as Longde are actually Semde texts.

Yes Longde is there in Shardza Tashi' s Kusum Rangshar.

No the classification is there but not Longde texts. You will see that Lopon also refers to the three series in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings but he is not saying that there are Longde texts in Bon; he actually says the contrary.

Lopon lak does mostly personal use the method Mengagde as explanation,

No he does that in public, he may use other methods in private (which are more potent).

Tenzin Wangyal explains the three streams of Bön-Dzogchen in the following way: the stream called Ati corresponds to Semde,

This "Ati" should certainly be corrected into A-khrid. But even A khrid which is considered as a Semde manual has evolved into Upadesha with Thogel and consort practice. It is thus very difficult to limit it to Semde.

Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud corresponds to Upadesha,

Sure that is generally accepted, but there is no mention of the three series in it and the expression "man-ngag-sde" does not appear in it nor in the related collections of Nyamgyu and other manuals associated with this cycle.

and the stream called Dzogchen corresponds to Longde.

Wrong, it's actually Semde but since it has some Upadeshas techniques (such as consort practice, dark retreat, etc.), it also has traits of Upadeshas. However, the root tantras of this "Dzogchen" (which corresponds to Dzogchen Yangtse Longchen) actually belong to the Drakpa Korsum and this is pure Bonpo Semde.

Well what TW makes more of it that is his case. I am looking only to what his / our Master, Lopon Tenzin Namdak does explain.

See the quotes from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings then. WHen the Yetri or Kusum Rangshar mention Longde, they mention the classification of the three series. But: 1) this is entirely copied on Nyingma texts, and 2) this means they accept the classificatory scheme, but does not prove any of the texts mentioned as being of Longde are actually Longde. I have read these texts through JL's translations and saw nothing of Longde characteristics therein...

So, we have Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen and Tenzin Wangyal saying that there are Longde teachings within Bön-Dzogchen, while Yongdzin Namdak and Karmay say the contrary...

THis is because Shardza is referring to the scheme and is of the opinion that Drakpa Korsum is Longdé, while Lopon Rinpoche and Samten Karmay say this collection is Semde... Shardza had an agenda in this case.

Well i doubt if our Lopon lak and Samten Karmay will have another opinion than Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen has.

Rinpoche's opinion differ frequently from Shardza's. This is no secret.

I keep for the safety, Lopon Lak' s explanations as the only valid ones.

He is indeed very well informed and contrary to many others (although not Shardza) he has read all Dzogchen Nyingma texts available and can recognized if there is something "Longde-esque" in his own tradition or not.

We saw that Lopon Lak did not deny the value and existence of Longde, Semsde and Mengagde within Bon Dzogchen.

This wrongly stated: Lopon says that the scheme from classifying the Dzogchen texts from the Bon of India fits with the 3 series. This is not the case for the rest of the Bon of Zhangzhung. Moreover, the Drakpa Korsum and Yangtse Longchen which are said to be Longde Bon texts are actually Semde.

kalden yungdrung wrote:Yes it is clear to me , but also clear to me, would be Lopon Lak's comment on Shardza Tashi's Kusum Rangshar.

According to Lopon and JL, Shardza had an agenda: showing that Bon has the entire set of Dzogchen teachings. But if you read the Drakpa Korsum and Yangtse Longchen (which Shardza defines as Longde), you won't see anything "longde-esque" in them.

In case Kusum Rangshar would not belong to Bon than yes it is like that Longde is part of Nyingma.

The Kusum Rangshar is based on a variety of sources, some are New Bon some are not. But this is in perfect line with Shardza's attempt at presenting Bon as having complete sets of the 3 series.

Shardza Tashi wrote a huge amount texts, within a very short time.

Not really within a short time. He wrote all his life. According to JL's biography of Shardza, he was fortunate to see his works in print during his lifetime. It would be like having a xerox home nowadays...

He did connect all Lineages within Bon.

Sure.

He was also Rime and very known in his days.

This is a misunderstanding. He had contacts with Rime masters (such as Kongtrul, etc.) but he did not hand over any other lineages (in this case Buddhist in the sense of Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma, etc.) than Bon teachings.

mutsuk wrote:I phoned JL today about this question and synthesized his answers below.

kalden yungdrung wrote:Tashi delek,

I have here the Kusum Rangshar or the rDzogs pa chen po sku gsum rang sharal snang bzhi' i nyams len ngo mtshar snang ba' i ltas moThe display of Marvellous Visions - Practice of the Natural Emergence of the 3 Bodies in their Great Perfection.

Mutsog MarroKY

It's of no use because it's partly based on New Bon works, as well as Bon from India which accepts the classification into three series. This means the Bonpos accept the three series as a valid classificatory scheme but they don't have Longde texts.

Bhusuku wrote:I'm curious about the existence (or non-existence) of Longde in Bön-Dzogchen...

See the quotes in my previous message from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings, p. 192 and 193.

But Samten Karmay suggests that the bsGrags pa skor gsum is basically the same as Semde.

Samten Karmay is right because what some Bonpos have classified as Longde are actually Semde texts.

Yes Longde is there in Shardza Tashi' s Kusum Rangshar.

No the classification is there but not Longde texts. You will see that Lopon also refers to the three series in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings but he is not saying that there are Longde texts in Bon; he actually says the contrary.

Lopon lak does mostly personal use the method Mengagde as explanation,

No he does that in public, he may use other methods in private (which are more potent).

Tenzin Wangyal explains the three streams of Bön-Dzogchen in the following way: the stream called Ati corresponds to Semde,

This "Ati" should certainly be corrected into A-khrid. But even A khrid which is considered as a Semde manual has evolved into Upadesha with Thogel and consort practice. It is thus very difficult to limit it to Semde.

Zhang Zhung Nyen Gyud corresponds to Upadesha,

Sure that is generally accepted, but there is no mention of the three series in it and the expression "man-ngag-sde" does not appear in it nor in the related collections of Nyamgyu and other manuals associated with this cycle.

and the stream called Dzogchen corresponds to Longde.

Wrong, it's actually Semde but since it has some Upadeshas techniques (such as consort practice, dark retreat, etc.), it also has traits of Upadeshas. However, the root tantras of this "Dzogchen" (which corresponds to Dzogchen Yangtse Longchen) actually belong to the Drakpa Korsum and this is pure Bonpo Semde.

Well what TW makes more of it that is his case. I am looking only to what his / our Master, Lopon Tenzin Namdak does explain.

See the quotes from Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings then. WHen the Yetri or Kusum Rangshar mention Longde, they mention the classification of the three series. But: 1) this is entirely copied on Nyingma texts, and 2) this means they accept the classificatory scheme, but does not prove any of the texts mentioned as being of Longde are actually Longde. I have read these texts through JL's translations and saw nothing of Longde characteristics therein...

So, we have Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen and Tenzin Wangyal saying that there are Longde teachings within Bön-Dzogchen, while Yongdzin Namdak and Karmay say the contrary...

THis is because Shardza is referring to the scheme and is of the opinion that Drakpa Korsum is Longdé, while Lopon Rinpoche and Samten Karmay say this collection is Semde... Shardza had an agenda in this case.

Well i doubt if our Lopon lak and Samten Karmay will have another opinion than Shardza Tashi Gyaltsen has.

Rinpoche's opinion differ frequently from Shardza's. This is no secret.

I keep for the safety, Lopon Lak' s explanations as the only valid ones.

He is indeed very well informed and contrary to many others (although not Shardza) he has read all Dzogchen Nyingma texts available and can recognized if there is something "Longde-esque" in his own tradition or not.

We saw that Lopon Lak did not deny the value and existence of Longde, Semsde and Mengagde within Bon Dzogchen.

This wrongly stated: Lopon says that the scheme from classifying the Dzogchen texts from the Bon of India fits with the 3 series. This is not the case for the rest of the Bon of Zhangzhung. Moreover, the Drakpa Korsum and Yangtse Longchen which are said to be Longde Bon texts are actually Semde.

Tashi delek,

Many thanks to your effort for contacting JL. Excellent informations and this is indeed needed to correct / adjust some wrong assumptions. Confusing for me that Longde then does belong to Semsde. Maybe some clarifications possible? It is a long time going problem for me to see here clear.

Thanks at beforehand

Mutsog marroKY

THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNEDIF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGEHE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MANWHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD

He asked: "Strange that this question comes up again... Where does it come from?" So I explained a little bit the context. His point is following Lopon's teachings which says : 1) the Bonpos consider, in their "Bon from India", that the 3 Series is a perfect way of presenting Dzogchen teachings; however the main text from the Bon of India is the Yetri and all it has about Longde (explanations of classifications, etc., not teachings) is copied from Nyingma texts;2) Texts such as the Drakpa Korsum and Yangtse Longchen (i.e; the root set and its manual) are actually Semde texts but some later Bonpos such as Shardza describe them as Longdé. Upon reading these texts, they appear as actually containing Semdé instructions and have correspondences with the Nyingma Semde (and not with Longde).

Excellent informations and this is indeed needed to correct / adjust some wrong assumptions.

Yes indeed. I guess the first to mention that there is no Longdé texts in Bon (despite the existence of the classification in 3 series in some texts) was Samten Karmay.

Confusing for me that Longde then does belong to Semsde.

JL just told me that Shardza treats Semde and Longde in a single chapter of his Yingrik Dzö, using basically the teachings of Shenchen Luga to explain the practice. According to JL this is all Semde stuff.

Maybe some clarifications possible? It is a long time going problem for me to see here clear.

I will try to recapitulate from what I understood :

1. there are no Longdé texts in Bon according to Samten Karmay, Lopon, JL and others.2. the classificatory scheme of the 3 series exists in the texts belonging to the "Bon of India". Foremost among these is the Yetri which is an Upadesha cycle (with several individual texts inside). However, it explains the 3 series and mentions Longdé but does not have Longdé texts in it.3. Shardza had an agenda, willing to demonstrate that Bonpo Dzogchen instructions had all three series. It seemed important for him, although the big masters of the previous generations did not view it like this. JL informs me that this is the influence of Sang-ngak Lingpa who was one of the most amazing tertöns of his time, revealing both Bon and Nyingma termas, and being himself a lineage holder of the Black Yangti of Dungtso Repa, among many other things. Sang-ngak Lingpa introduced Shardza to the "art" of revealing termas, an "art" he himself had received from Dechen Lingpa and which Dechen Lingpa had explained to Khyentse Wangpo (which is why Khyentse paid for the print of the collected termas revealed by Dechen Lingpa), etc. Sang-ngak Lingpa's lived quite old, until the middle of the previous century. He has played a crucial role in Shardza's approach to Dzogchen in the Kusum Rangshar. That's all I could note from deluge of infos JL gave me on the phone... I hope this helps.

mutsuk wrote:I phoned JL today about this question and synthesized his answers below.

Thank you very much for making that effort!

mutsuk wrote:This "Ati" should certainly be corrected into A-khrid.

I'm aware of that and I just wrote "Ati" here because that's the word TW uses in his "Wonders of the Natural Mind" on page 54.

mutsuk wrote:But even A khrid which is considered as a Semde manual has evolved into Upadesha with Thogel and consort practice. It is thus very difficult to limit it to Semde.

Bhusuku wrote: and the stream called Dzogchen corresponds to Longde.

mutsuk wrote:Wrong, it's actually Semde but since it has some Upadeshas techniques (such as consort practice, dark retreat, etc.), it also has traits of Upadeshas. However, the root tantras of this "Dzogchen" (which corresponds to Dzogchen Yangtse Longchen) actually belong to the Drakpa Korsum and this is pure Bonpo Semde.

So, does that mean that A khrid and Dzogchen are both some kind of "mixture" between Semde and Upadesha, while in the ZZNG there is no such classification/division into the 3 series? And if that's the case, is the ZZNG purely Upadesha or does it include Semde teachings as well (just without distinguishing between those two)? I'm asking this because from my limited understanding, the general Nyingma approach is a little different, because there Longde is regarded as a kind of mixture between a more symbolic introduction and the oral introduction from Semde, and Upadesha is a kind of mixture between the essential points from Semde and Longde, while working more with a direct introduction (hence, there is no "mixture" between Semde & Upadesha in Nyingma). AFAIK, almost all buddh. teachers utilize the Upadesha approach when teaching Dzogchen these days, while a few teachers like ChNN figured that the Semde approach is in general more efficient for (most of) his students to make some initial progress in their practice. And from what I understand from your & Achard's explanations, it seems to me that the general Bön approach is in that sense similar to the one of ChNN (i.e., to utilize Semde & Upadesha), except that Bönpos don't teach Longde since there is no Longde in their systems.